An exploratory case study on child sex tourism in a Pacific country: Samoa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, The Committee of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, expressed concern about rising tourism in Samoa, and the possibility of associated sexual exploitation of local children. The Committee had recommended that the Government of Samoa devote further research to the sexual exploitation of children, including identifying its scope, and root causes. This thesis became a response to The Committee’s recommendation to Samoa. I carried this study out in Apia, Samoa (2009). It presented three research objectives as follows, 1) To report the scope of child sex tourism in Samoa, 2) To identify, and report on the root causes that contributed to child sex tourism in Samoa, and 3) To present a set of recommendations as a baseline foundation for policy, advocacy, and research. Methodology was a qualitative, single embedded case study. Data sources were mixed-method and multi-perspective, aimed at triangulation to enhance trustworthy results. Data analysis was inductive. Anecdotal evidence revealed child sex tourism is a serious problem in Samoa. Victims were girls and boys (including straight and transgendered ones), perpetrators were all male; preferential and opportunistic. The data revealed 10 root causes facilitating CST in Samoa, as follows: 1) Poverty, 2) Hospitality, 3) Philanthropic exploitation, 4) Marginalisation of boys, 5) Family under pressure, and family dysfunction, 6) Unsafe schools, 7) Ifoga, or the culture of shame, 8) Sex tourism, 9) Tourism was excused of any action, and 10) Lack of awareness about child sex tourism. Additionally, four substantial root causes were identified, as follows: 1) Complacency, 2) Attitudes toward data collection, 3) Child sex tourism had to be ‘proven’ by statistics, and 4) Perpetrators beaten and deported leading to under reporting. This was a first study in Samoa. The baseline results this study presents, are important for policy development, advocacy, and for the academic research community, offer a platform to build on, both quantitative and qualitative.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".